GenerationW
Senior Member
^ Why are you wasting time responding to my gluttony? Get out there and solve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
- Thread starter tkip
- Start date
Parkdalian
Senior Member
Once again, I blame the square coconut beverages.
kettal
Banned
This really puts into perspective how skewed your memory is. For much of the 1980s and 90s, the unemployment rate was over 10%. Meaning 1 out of 10 people could not find work. Today, in our "unprecedented depression", we have an unemployment rate of 8%, and that is currently dropping as I type this.
Glen
Senior Member
Toronto, seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, May 2010 = 10.4%. Up from 10% in April.
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/2010-may.pdf
urbandreamer
recession proof
And remember, that's "official gov't propaganda"--the real unemployment rate is at least double the official numbers....
nfitz
Superstar
I'm calling bullshit on that one. If you want to look at the numbers, look at the employment rate. It's very strong. Are you going to tell me that this is falsified?
As for Toronto being in decline ... as far as I can tell, the whole world has been in decline since AOL joined the internet. That's what I'm blaming ...
taal
Senior Member
The fact that more immigrants settle in the 905 has nothing to do with anything - this is a typical trend that can be observed throughout North America. What exactly would this indicate anyway? Property taxes are lower here - large houses are generally cheaper in the 905 verse central Toronto.
Glen. you talk about how the tax system in Toronto puts more of the burden on commerical developments - by it self this doesn't mean anything but compared to the 905 it does (and you're correct) ... again Toronto isn't competing with other cities in this regard, it's competing with our immediate surrounding neighbors.
Now when you mention the new office towers were built do to tax breaks, what's wrong with this exactly? This is exactly the sort of thing we need to attract more and more development - or are you just implying the *current* system as is would attract little.
You need to consider one thing when looking at unemployment data - and again this can mirrored throughout the world - the majority of the GTA's poorer residents settle in Toronto - as this is where most of the services are and this contributes to the unemployment rate - note I'm not talking about homeless people - they wouldn't be counted (you need to be actively looking for a job to be counted). As this spread increases between rich and poor - more of them will still decide to locate in Toronto - the amount of subsided housing outside of Toronto is honestly despicable - so the looking at the change in unemployment rates may be more valuable.
Another interesting figure from that report is net rents - there you can clearly see they've declined more in Toronto verse our neighbors.
btw ... we go on and on about the tax burden business face, but aren't the majority of businesses just paying rent i.e. they don't pay taxes - it's the land owner that would (i.e. the big, oxford / BF / allied / ...) but I guess they reflect these in the rents? I just mean, I'm surprised you'd ever hear a rental complain about taxes - they may complain about the rental rates (which may in turn be due to taxes)
For fun I had a look at the different between commerical property taxes in other Canadian cities compared to their neighbors - you can definitely tell it is larger in Toronto - Montreal, however, does have a similar discrepancy - but a lot of the other cities didn't.
Glen. you talk about how the tax system in Toronto puts more of the burden on commerical developments - by it self this doesn't mean anything but compared to the 905 it does (and you're correct) ... again Toronto isn't competing with other cities in this regard, it's competing with our immediate surrounding neighbors.
Now when you mention the new office towers were built do to tax breaks, what's wrong with this exactly? This is exactly the sort of thing we need to attract more and more development - or are you just implying the *current* system as is would attract little.
You need to consider one thing when looking at unemployment data - and again this can mirrored throughout the world - the majority of the GTA's poorer residents settle in Toronto - as this is where most of the services are and this contributes to the unemployment rate - note I'm not talking about homeless people - they wouldn't be counted (you need to be actively looking for a job to be counted). As this spread increases between rich and poor - more of them will still decide to locate in Toronto - the amount of subsided housing outside of Toronto is honestly despicable - so the looking at the change in unemployment rates may be more valuable.
Another interesting figure from that report is net rents - there you can clearly see they've declined more in Toronto verse our neighbors.
btw ... we go on and on about the tax burden business face, but aren't the majority of businesses just paying rent i.e. they don't pay taxes - it's the land owner that would (i.e. the big, oxford / BF / allied / ...) but I guess they reflect these in the rents? I just mean, I'm surprised you'd ever hear a rental complain about taxes - they may complain about the rental rates (which may in turn be due to taxes)
For fun I had a look at the different between commerical property taxes in other Canadian cities compared to their neighbors - you can definitely tell it is larger in Toronto - Montreal, however, does have a similar discrepancy - but a lot of the other cities didn't.
Last edited:
Glen
Senior Member
Housing is cheaper in the suburbs of Toronto than in the 905. The Poverty by Postal Code report touched on this..
While jobs and employment were mentioned, the role of property tax differentials in areas was not.
The speech and data show that the increase was particularly greater in the the period from 1991 to 2001. This, opposed to pre 1991. At the same time the settlement of immigrants in the 416 area was decreasing, yet increasing in the 905 region. In 1996 the City of Toronto absorbed 33.6% of net migration to Toronto and area. By 2006 it only absorbed 6.6%. These are figures from Toronto's Economic Development office complied in the Vital Signs report. Of the 74,362 immigrants who moved to the city / region in 2006 4,908 moved to Toronto while the other 69,454 moved to the 905 region. While the granularity of the statistics are different, the trend still suggest that if immigrant families are highly represented in the poverty figures, while the amount of immigration to Toronto is decreasing, the trend should be the opposite. Conversely, if factors making immigrants more susceptible to poverty are innate, then we should see an increase in poverty in the 905 regions, as they are now the destination of the vast majority of immigrants.
Not made mention of in the report(s), the increase in povertyand the susceptibility of new immigrants has more to do with the decline in the number of jobs in Toronto. Furthermore, the change in the type of jobs. I was raised in the Keel - Jane / Finch area. The area contains a large number of industrial neighborhoods. I have witnessed a number of the companies, who were there when I was growing up, move to the 905 region. Many former factories, are now used car dealerships or other more 'precarious' type of employers. Now, even if the number of jobs have declined only slightly, and I think it has been more than slight, the requirements would have changed dramatically. The ability in communicate with customers would trump work ethic. In traditional factory / industrial work, lack of English proficiency is not as much of an encumbrance.
Toronto had missed out on participating in the economic expansion that occurred in the region, province and country. This can be solely attributed to the unreasonably high levels of taxation on non residential properties. Toronto has made itself unfeasible to build most new types of employment space. (see the proformas in Toronto Long Term Employment Land Surveys). At the same time it has hurt the existing ones by devaluing property values that are used to capitalize small businesses. If one is to look at the figures in Toronto's Enhancing Toronto's Business Climate report, it is apparent that the amount and timing of poverty increase is closely aligned with the fallout of the changed (same period) tax climate.
There are many reasons for poverty. All the factors that influence it, have been relatively constant. The one exception has been the change in Toronto's tax climate that forced companies to locate or move to the 905 region. The transfer of employment opportunities that new immigrants can participate in appear to be the major factor at play here.
Correct. Until the decision to locate in an Urban area is made,property taxes are not an issue. Afterwards they certainly are. It also has a major effect on the willingness of builders to build on spec.
I mentioned it it because pointing to the construction of these towers as proof of city flourishing is deceptive. But yes, they would not have been constructed without such breaks.
See first response
As one would expect. If there is no appetite to absorb the increasing taxes (5% per annum via capping plus budgetary increase), they will be reflected in decreasing net rents. Eventually they will be reflected in the assessment values.
btw ... we go on and on about the tax burden business face, but aren't the majority of businesses just paying rent i.e. they don't pay taxes - it's the land owner that would (i.e. the big, oxford / BF / allied / ...) but I guess they reflect these in the rents? I just mean, I'm surprised you'd ever hear a rental complain about taxes - they may complain about the rental rates (which may in turn be due to taxes)
Out of site out of mind, just like renters in multi residential apartments.
taal
Senior Member
Won't things cancel out once rental rates fall enough ?
True there would be so much more pressure to build residential instead- but if net rents fall ... I'm sure companies want to be in Toronto if it weren't for rent (and the tax is berried in this) due to many reasons (if you want to debate that save it for another thread) ... but I guess land would make a very bad investment *for commerical use*.
You've said this before but the few changes Toronto is trying to make in this regard i.e. balancing the ratio of burden to equalize it with the 905 is amounting to almost nothing?
True there would be so much more pressure to build residential instead- but if net rents fall ... I'm sure companies want to be in Toronto if it weren't for rent (and the tax is berried in this) due to many reasons (if you want to debate that save it for another thread) ... but I guess land would make a very bad investment *for commerical use*.
You've said this before but the few changes Toronto is trying to make in this regard i.e. balancing the ratio of burden to equalize it with the 905 is amounting to almost nothing?
Glen
Senior Member
Won't things cancel out once rental rates fall enough ?
True there would be so much more pressure to build residential instead- but if net rents fall ... I'm sure companies want to be in Toronto if it weren't for rent (and the tax is berried in this) due to many reasons (if you want to debate that save it for another thread) ... but I guess land would make a very bad investment *for commerical use*.
You've said this before but the few changes Toronto is trying to make in this regard i.e. balancing the ratio of burden to equalize it with the 905 is amounting to almost nothing?
If net rents fall, so should value and therefore taxes. The reality is different though. When province wide assessments were updated in 2005, in the city of Toronto residential property values increased far more than non residential. This should have automatically induced a shift in tax burden towards the residential tax base in order to keep the ratios stable. The city fearing the political backlash petitioned the Minister of Finance to prevent the shift, thereby increasing the ratios. During the last assessment cycle commercial properties appreciated more than residential transfer more of the tax burden on commercial properties. Predictably the city did not complain.
As always this is about optics. The city is not equalizing the tax rate with the 905 region. What they did for the Enhancing Toronto's Business Climate program was to take Toronto's absurdly low residential tax rate at the time and multiply it by 2.5 which equaled the current 905 average rate. Conveniently ignored was that that to achieve the reduction residential taxes would have to rise. They used the rate, not the ratio, as a straw-man to say they will reach parity.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Glen:
You kept on insisting that the current crop of office towers are built with tax breaks - what tax breaks, exactly? Proof of such would be nice, thanks.
AoD
You kept on insisting that the current crop of office towers are built with tax breaks - what tax breaks, exactly? Proof of such would be nice, thanks.
AoD
taal
Senior Member
Thought I don't know the details - I do recall some articles about this project, BA in particular did mention something about tax breaks in them - we know this is true for corus as well.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Oh Corus definitely is - but it has a very different financing arrangement from other projects like BA, Telus, RBC Dexia and 18 York.
AoD
AoD
HHC
Active Member
I love how we're at 10% employment, (the rest of Ontario is even worse), yet the immigration floodgate continues to get larger. Can someone please fill me in here? By the time i'm out of University, I don't see myself having a job.
Oliver Tweed
Active Member
Think of it as short term pain for long term gain. We need immigrants to grow our economy in the long term, so we have to keep the doors open. Otherwise we would be saddled with an aging population, which is extremely problematic. This is what Japan is facing because of their low birth rate and lack of immigration.